Institutional Affiliate of American Congress on Surveying - CLSA

Letters
IMPLIED ACCURACY
jditor: A few years ago I felt
compelled to write the California
Surveyor concerning the difference
between precision and accuracy.
Now with the proliferation
<strong>of</strong> desktop computers and their
product, I again have this strange
compulsion to call attention to all
<strong>of</strong> the maps now being filed with
course lengths from 5 to 200 feet
in length and bearings shown to
one second <strong>of</strong> arc.
Have the authors <strong>of</strong> these maps
stopped to consider the field procedures
they employ? Usually a 20
second instrument sighting either
From the Editor
APOLOGY
The article entitled "A Blueprint
for Competition" which appeared
in the last edition <strong>of</strong> The
California Surveyor was run
listakenly and WITHOUT the
Inowledge or consent <strong>of</strong> the
'author. The article was received
from a source other than the
author, and was a rough draft
NOT intended for publication. We
apologize to the author and to our
readership for this error.
SUNSET
Those <strong>of</strong> you who read your Pr<strong>of</strong>essional
Engineers Report will
have noted that the Board <strong>of</strong> Registration
for Pr<strong>of</strong>essional Engineers
has begun its review <strong>of</strong> California's
Title Acts and expects this
process to be completed by the end
<strong>of</strong> April. After the Title Acts have
been reviewed, the Board will
begin reviewing the Practice Acts,
one <strong>of</strong> which regulates the practice
<strong>of</strong> Land Surveying. The purpose <strong>of</strong>
this review is to determine
whether or not the pr<strong>of</strong>essions
regulated by those acts should be
regulated at all, and if so what
changes should be made in those
acts. This review should be <strong>of</strong> in-
|erest to all Land Surveyors for it
nil determine the future <strong>of</strong> not
merely the mechanics <strong>of</strong> regulation,
but whether the pr<strong>of</strong>ession
will be regulated at all, i.e.,
whether or not there will even be
a rangepole or a plumb-bob string,
then taken the time or thought to
realize that the tangent <strong>of</strong>fset for 5
seconds <strong>of</strong> arc is 0.0048 feet, while
standard plumb-bob string is approximately
0.006 in diameter?
Licensed Land Surveyors in
California's future. In this edition
<strong>of</strong> The California Surveyor you
will find an article about how surveyors
in Texas almost lost their
Pr<strong>of</strong>essional Registration—read it
well, for the same situation has
come to Cahfornia. The CaUfornia
Land Surveyors Association has
been and will continue to work
with the Board <strong>of</strong> Registration,
and in the halls <strong>of</strong> the State
Capitol to represent the interests
<strong>of</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>essional Land Surveyors
and the pubHc whom we serve.
Now more than ever CLSA needs
your membership and support.
NEW OFFICERS
1982 has brought us a new slate
<strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficers. Our new president is
Charles Moore <strong>of</strong> San Diego, vice
president is James Crabtree <strong>of</strong>
Eureka, secretary is James
Dorsey <strong>of</strong> Simi Valley and treasurer
is Kevin McHugh <strong>of</strong> Irvine.
Along with these we have a new
group <strong>of</strong> Chapter Representatives
— their names are printed inside
the front cover <strong>of</strong> The California
Surveyor. Get to know them, for it
is they who give <strong>of</strong> their own time
to represent YOU on the Board <strong>of</strong>
Directors <strong>of</strong> the Association. We
are looking forward to a fruitful
year and welcome all <strong>of</strong> the new
talent!
EQUIPMENT CORNER
I contend that if a practitioner is
doing responsible work, his error
<strong>of</strong> closure is negligible and <strong>of</strong> little
consequence to a re-tracer <strong>of</strong> his
work, and there is absolutely no
need for showing these adjusted
courses as they are appearing with
increasing frequency.
I believe a "Record <strong>of</strong> Survey"
should be just that, a record <strong>of</strong>
what the surveyor did and hopefully
even an explanation <strong>of</strong> why
he did it. It is NOT a record <strong>of</strong> his
particular calculator's ability to
mathematically manipulate
numbers!
I would welcome a rebuttal from
those who feel they have an argument
for showing things to an implied
precision that they have not
achieved in the field. I will not accept
the argument <strong>of</strong> quantity <strong>of</strong>
output only that <strong>of</strong> quality.
Arguments may be sent to:
George R. Dunbar, L.S.
P.O. Box 1018
Santa Cruz, CA 95061
We are introducing in this edition
a regular column entitled
''Equipment Corner.'' This column
was originated by the author,
Reily Smith. For those <strong>of</strong> us who
are having equipment problems
and for those <strong>of</strong> us who wish to
sing the praises <strong>of</strong> our equipment,
"Equipment Corner" will provide
a service and a forum. This type <strong>of</strong>
regular feature has long been needed,
but it took someone interested
enough to volunteer to make it
happen. If you have an idea for a
regular feature AND you are interested
in working to make that
idea become reahty, contact the
editor.
NEW PRINTER
This edition <strong>of</strong> The California
Surveyor is being printed by a
firm which we are using on a trial
basis. This is primarily due to the
efforts <strong>of</strong> C.L.S.A. to reduce the
cost <strong>of</strong> the magazine in order to
put our financial resources into
other programs. We ask that our
readers look over this edition
carefully and then give us their
opinions as to the overall material
quality (printing, paper, read
ability, etc.) as compared to
previous issues. This information
will be used to determine whether
or not we want to continue on
with this new printing firm.
Please send your comments to
Dorothy Calegari at C.L.S.A.'s
central <strong>of</strong>fice in Santa Rosa.
The California Surveyor — Spring 1982 Page 11
D
n